My major problem with the article, besides the obvious absurdity, was this
apparent premise:
"An Oxford University study found that women are running faster than they
have ever done over 100m."
Aside from the fact that it simply is not true, it's a great premise to
start out on.
Dan
--- [EMAIL
The article is probably meant to be serious, and is also "based on legitimate"
foolishness of a person that understands naught about human pefromance.
Disgrace for Oxford (with whom I collaborate on two large international pooled
aanlyses in epidemiology and have not encountered such nonsense, than
Women may eventually beat men in the marathon-plus distances but are very, very
unlikely to overtake men over 100 meters. One problem with tracing parallel
improvements is that they're not parallel. Men starting training seriously decades
before women started training seriously, so men started a
Here is a quote from another article.
"For his part, Tatem acknowledges that there are difficulties in
foretelling the Olympic future, but says there is no proof that women's
times will level out. "I should be happy to stake my reputation on the
predicted date," he says. "If I'm wrong anyone is
And why is the article not supposed to be serious?
The article is based on legitimate research by a team led by Dr Tatem from
the Department of Zoology at Oxford University.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3702650.stm
I see nothing here saying that this is all in jest!
Paul
-Original
The article wasn't intended to be serious.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
LS
Numerous newspapers and other media spend hundreds and hundreds of words this week on the very surprising study that predicts women to run faster then men in some very distant future. It's funny what kind of bulls..t (pardon my
